►Greek Mythology and Philosophy:

Apollonian and Dionysian are terms used by Nietzsche in his book “The Birth of Tragedy”to designate the two central principles in Greek culture.

Apollo was the son of zeus and Leto. Artemis was his twin sister. He was the greek god of prophecy, music, intellectual pursuits, healing, plague, and sometimes, the sun.

Writers often contrast the cerebral, beardless young Apollo with his half-brother, the hedonistic Dionysus.

As to Dionysus, he was the son ofZeus and Semele. Dionysus was the greek god of wine, agriculture, and fertility of nature. He was also related to mystery religions, such as those practised at Eleusis, being linked to ecstasy and initiation into secret rites.

Apollo, as the sun-god, represents light, clarity, and form, whereas Dionysus, as the wine-god, represents drunkenness and ecstasy.

The Apollonian, which corresponds to Schopenhauer’s principium individuationis (“principle of individuation”), is the basis of all analytic distinctions.

Everything that is part of the unique individuality of man or thing is Apollonian in character; all types of form or structure are Apollonian, since form serves to define or individualize that which is formed; thus, sculpture is the most Apollonian of the arts, since it relies entirely on form for its effect. Rational thought is also Apollonian since it is structured and makes distinctions.

The Dionysian, which corresponds to Schopenhauer’s conception of “Will”, is directly opposed to the Apollonian.

Drunkenness and madness are Dionysian because they break down a man’s individual character; all forms of enthusiasm and ecstasy are Dionysian, for in such states man gives up his individuality and submerges himself in a greater whole: music is the most Dionysian of the arts, since it appeals directly to man’s instinctive, chaotic emotions and not to his formally reasoning mind.

“Dionysian spirit” is defined in the philosophy of Nietzsche, as displaying creative-intuitive power as opposed to critical-rational power.

But, both of them, the Apollonian and the Dionysian are necessary in the creation of art. Without the Apollonian, the Dionysian lacks the form and structure to make a coherent piece of art, and without the Dionysian, the Apollonian lacks the necessary vitality and passion. Although they are diametrically opposed, they are also intimately intertwined.

The Greek tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles, which Nietzsche considers to be among humankind’s greatest accomplishments, achieve their sublime effects by taming Dionysian passions by means of the Apollonian. Greek tragedy evolved out of religious rituals featuring a chorus of singers and dancers, and it achieved its distinctive shape when two or more actors stood apart from the chorus as tragic actors. The chorus of a Greek tragedy is not the “ideal spectator,” as some scholars believe, but rather the representation of the primal unity achieved through the Dionysian. By witnessing the fall of a tragic hero, we witness the death of the individual, who is absorbed back into the Dionysian primal unity. Because the Apollonian impulses of the Greek tragedians give form to the Dionysian rituals of music and dance, the death of the hero is not a negative, destructive act but rather a positive, creative affirmation of life through art.

Unfortunately, the golden age of Greek tragedy lasted less than a century and was brought to an end by the combined influence of Euripides and Socrates. Euripides shuns both the primal unity induced by the Dionysian and the dreamlike state induced by the Apollonian, and instead he turns the Greek stage into a platform for morality and rationality.

One of Nietzsche’s concerns in “The Birth of Tragedy” is to address the question of the best stance to take toward existence and the world. He criticizes his own age for being overly rationalistic, for assuming that it is best to treat existence and the world primarily as objects of knowledge, which is for him meaningless.

Greek tragedy as Nietzsche understands it cannot coexist in a world of Socratic rationality.

Tragedy gains its strength from exposing the depths that lie beneath our rational surface, whereas Socrates insists that we become fully human only by becoming fully rational.

Thank you very much for dropping by and sharing your inisghts as regard to The Dichotomy Apollonian -Dionysian and the importance of finding balance between these two extremes…
As Aristotle would say: “The golden mean (i.e: Virtue) represents a balance between extremes or vices”.
I really appreciate your comment, my blogger friend.

This is so interesting Aquileana! Thanks so much for explaining this so clearly. Why do you think he called it “The Birth of Tragedy”? Is he referring directly to the Greek era, or to the “tragedy” that results “from exposing the depths that lie beneath our rational surface?” Is society suppressing human’s “Dionysian spirit”?

I think the second interpretation you provided above is accurate and truly eloquent …

As we already discussed the analogies between Nietzsche and Freud are clear… So “the tragedy resulting from exposing the depths that lie beneath our rational surface” might probably be linked with the symptoms that Freud tied to waht he called “The Uneasiness in Culture”…
Therefore, following your ideas, I would say that “Supresion of human’s “Dionysian spirit” might be certainly similar to what “Repression” means, in psychoanalytic terms…

Thank you very much for adding these interestings thoughts here.
Many hugs, Aquileana 😀

Thanks Cybele, believe me, Aquileana has helped me to understand how all of this is related to Greek mythology. I had always been a fan of modern philosophers and now I can finally relate to Greek mythology

Hello dear Aquileana,
Thank you for sharing this very interesting information. As always, I learned something new, and I become more & more interested in Greek mythology.
Have a great weekend!
Takami 🙂

The best of two worlds, and two minds, and two sides to every story!
A rational Trinity? Water will have the last word there, me thinks. 😉
And I like your taste in the arts — sweet, wise, and quite educational.

How interesting that you linked Schopenhauer’s idea of “Will” with the essential natural elements…
Will can be understood as “Nature” and also as a sort of unconscious force, which might also be found in human beings (Freud would call it precisely “Unconscious”)

I am just adding a couple of quotes that I have found in this article:

That is very well pointed. I think that the main challenge here is to try find balance between these two extremes of the dichotomy.
Thank you very much for reading, commenting and the whole hashtag thing the other night .
Enjoy your weekend, dear Syl. Best wishes, Aquileana 😛
(PS> I added the 😛 face ! )

I always feel so much more knowledgeable…yet simultaneously wishing to delve deeper and learn more when I read your posts. You always do share in such an intellectually enticing manner!!

I shall have to add ‘The Birth of Tragedy’ to my TBR list! I love love love Greek Mythology…just haven’t delved into learning as much as I would wish to…yet 😉 !! This was so amazing, thank you for sharing!

I have so missed your posts, time hasn’t been my friend but I am so hopeful to be better about visiting for I do always learn so much and I absolutely love to learn!!

You are a very talented writer and always intrigue me to learn more of what you are writing of! For instance…I had no idea that was Nietzsche’s first book…that he wrote it as a thesis! Now I’m more intrigued to read it!! I did save the link to the PDF and hope to read it soon. Thank you so much for sharing your words and the link 🙂 !
Hugs and Happy weekend sweet friend ❤ ~

A classic case of ying and yang. We all need to tune into the give and take of such pulls in order to be better artists as well as thinkers. It floors me every time I think about the origins of Greek theatre. To think, the addition of a second and a third character was at one time a radical concept. Look how that artistic form has blossomed over the years into so many different paths to expression.

I didn’t realize there were these comparisons and contrasts between characters as you mention… Anything with Nietzsche catches my eye though as it’s just so thought-provoking!
You are a smart gal to be able to understand all of this! Not that I doubted otherwise 🙂 You = clever sweet orange!
Also thank-you for adding the new “galpal” image to the side of the blog in addition to the other quote cards I’ve made you xo Very special!
xo
Love Chris
PS Happy Friday!!

What’s interesting is why is this called a “tragedy”? I suppose it’s related to the dichotomy of both Apollonian -Dionysian representing a “duality” in art and that it is “”tragedy” that gains its strength from exposing the depths that lie beneath our rational surface”; which brings to mind a very interesting concept developed by Freud in his pychoanalytical theory: “sublimation”. According to Freud’s psychoanalytical theory, erotic energy is allowed a limited amount of expression, owing to the constraints of human society and civilization itself. It therefore requires other outlets, especially if an individual is to remain psychologically balanced. Sublimation is the process of transforming libido into “socially useful” achievements, including artistic, cultural and intellectual pursuits. Freud considered this psychical operation to be fairly salutary compared to the others that he identified, such as repression, displacement, denial, reaction formation, intellectualisation and projection”.

According to Freud, “sublimation is a mature type of defense mechanism where socially unacceptable impulses or idealizations are consciously transformed into socially acceptable actions or behavior, possibly resulting in a long-term conversion of the initial impulse. Sigmund Freud believed that sublimation was a sign of maturity (indeed, of civilization), allowing people to function normally in culturally acceptable ways. He defined sublimation as the process of deflecting sexual instincts into acts of higher social valuation, being “an especially conspicuous feature of cultural development; it is what makes it possible for higher psychical activities, scientific, artistic or ideological, to play such an important part in civilised life”.

Great insights as regard to ”tragedy“ and Freud’s concept of “sublimation”.

(Ie : Sublimation is the process of transforming libido into “socially useful” achievements, including artistic, cultural and intellectual pursuits)
i believe that sublimation might be linked to apollonian forces and also think that the idea of catharsis in greek tragedies can be linked to both concepts:

“Catharsis (from the Greek κάθαρσις katharsis meaning “purification” or “cleansing”) is the purification and purgation of emotions—especially pity and fear—through art or any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal”.

“Catharsis can only be achieved if we see something that is both recognisable and distant”.

“Aristotle thought of drama as being “animitation of an action” and of tragedy as “falling from a higher to a lower estate”. He held the characters in tragedy were better than the average human being, while those of comedy were worse.”…

Nevertheless, Jung strikes back at Freud with his interpretation. According to Jung: “Sublimation is part of the royal art where the true gold is made. Of this Freud knows nothing, worse still, he barricades all the paths that could lead to true sublimation. This is just about the opposite of what Freud understands by sublimation. It is not a voluntary and forcible channeling of instinct into a spurious field of application, but an alchymical transformation for which fire and prima materia are needed. Sublimation is a great mystery. Freud has appropriated this concept and usurped it for the sphere of the will and the bourgeois, rationalistic ethos.”
He goes on to say:
“Freud invented the idea of sublimation to save us from the imaginary claws of the unconscious. But what is real, what actually exists, cannot be alchemically sublimated, and if anything is apparently sublimated it never was what a false interpretation took it to be.”

Neo-Freudian Harry Stack Sullivan, the pioneer of interpersonal psychoanalysis, defined “sublimation as the unwitting substitution of a partial satisfaction with social approval for the pursuit of a direct satisfaction which would be contrary to one’s ideals or to the judgment of social censors and other important people who surround one. The substitution might not be quite what we want, but it is the only way that we can get part of our satisfaction and feel secure, too.”

“Along with Clara Thompson, Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, Otto Allen Will, Jr., Erik H. Erikson, and Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, Sullivan laid the groundwork for understanding the individual based on the network of relationships in which he or she is enmeshed. He developed a theory of psychiatry based on interpersonal relationships where cultural forces are largely responsible for mental illnesses. In his words, one must pay attention to the “interactional”, not the “intrapsychic”. This search for satisfaction via personal involvement with others led Sullivan to characterize loneliness as the most painful of human experiences.” Perhaps this is the ‘”tragedy”, “the cultural forces [which] are largely responsible for mental illnesses.”

All the information from above was taken from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology)
So according to the Neo-Freudian school of thought, there was no longer so much emphasis placed on the “intrapsychic” process, but on the “interactional” and “interpersonal relationships”; and “cultural forces” are out there “largely responsible for mental illnesses”. Now this school of thought is also outdated due to scientific research demonstrating “mental illnesses” as byproducts of biochemical imbalances processes occuring in the brain. So in modern society, there is “finally” a way to control people who get “out of hand”, through the use of psychotropics.
Michel Foucault (15 October 1926 – 25 June 1984) theories’ addressed the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. In his book “Discipline and Punish” (1975), Foucault particularly emphasizes how such reform also becomes a vehicle of more effective control: “to punish less, perhaps; but certainly to punish better”. He argued that the new mode of punishment became the model for control of an entire society, with factories, hospitals, and schools modeled on the “modern prison”. (http://stanford.io/1zvMVAh)

Thanks Aisha for understanding. I consider Nietzsche an extremely existentialist philosopher who was already predicting the downfall of modern society and the struggles between the Apollonian and the Dionysian “forces” within human beings. He later went on to say that “God was dead”, but not to offend any religions in particular; he said it to awaken and face humans with the fact that religion should not be used as a “crutch” to solve problems, but rather the Apollonian and the Dionysian forces (he also called it thesis and anti-thesis), favoring the Dionysian spirit and the “overthrowing” of all morals and values, to then rebuild new ones.

I think I agree with Jung’s words as regard to Freud’ s idea of sublimation. Particularly when he said:

“Freud has appropriated this concept and usurped it for the sphere of the will and the bourgeois, rationalistic ethos.”

In this sense, Jung tends to believe that sublimation is an ally with apollonian forces, don’t you think?..

As to Jung’s interpretation of what sublimation implies… (Ie: “an alchymical transformation for which fire and prima materia are needed. Sublimation is a great mystery”) I would say it is an interesting definition but maybe a little bit esoteric and abstract… in other words: a Mistery, as he said…

I think that Neo-Freudian ‘s perspectives are ready-witted.. Mainly because they introduce the social variable, meaning the interpersonal relationships.

I now understand why you have these approaches with Foucault in your other comment here…

The interphysical perspective which determines the relationships between power and knowledge, shaping particular form of social control through societal institutions.

The interpersonal relationships and the cultural forces which define what is normal and what is insane…
Great to read your insights.

Thanks Aquileana. I also don’t quite understand Jung with some of his concepts, and yes, he may have linked “sublimation” with Apollonian forces, and be a little bit esoteric and abstract, whereas both Nietzsche and Freud are very clear about the term.
This is when Jung begins to depart from Psychiatry into “modern psychology”:
“Unlike many modern psychologists, Jung did not feel that experimenting using natural science was the only means to understand the human psyche. For him, he saw as empirical evidence the world of dream, myth, and folklore as the promising road to its deeper understanding and meaning. That method’s choice is related with his choice of the object of his science. As Jung said, “The beauty about the unconscious is that it is really unconscious”. Hence, the unconscious is ‘untouchable’ by experimental researches, or indeed any possible kind of scientific or philosophical reach, precisely because it is unconscious. Although the unconscious cannot be studied by using direct approaches it is, according to Jung, at least, a useful hypothesis. His postulated unconscious was quite different from the model that was proposed by Freud, despite the great influence that the founder of psychoanalysis had on Jung. The most known difference is the assumption of the collective unconscious (Jungian archetypes), although Jung’s proposal of collective unconscious and archetypes was based on the assumption of the existence of psychic (mental) patterns.” (http://bit.ly/1kjVF2C)
Simply by saying “the unconscious is ‘untouchable’ by experimental researches, or indeed any possible kind of scientific or philosophical reach, precisely because it is unconscious”, he was departing from the empirical research that characterised Freud for so long and which kept him in the medical field, whereas Jung goes on be the founder of “Analytical Psychology” and is pivotal in this movement.

The way you highlighted the main differences between Freud and Jung’s approaches to the study of the unconscious is so accurate and well explained.

Carl Jung’s quote is remarkable: “The beauty about the unconscious is that it is really unconscious”.

I think that Jung’s hypothetical (AKA “Analytical Psychology”) method with regard to collective unconscious and archetypes might be a linked to an ethnographic work or with the analytical method, typical of Anthropology.

Although, after all the achievements of Jung’s researches I may have objections regarding the unconscious as being ‘untouchable’… I think that even according to Jung’s method the unconscious is more than just a useful hypothesis, don’t you think?.

You may ask why I bring this “madness” or “insanity” issue up on this post. Probably because in order for both the Apollonian and Dionysian forces to work together, there must be a “balance” (my words). From an existentialist point of view, when the balance is not there (either because of societal pressures or illness/disease), could mean the “tragedy”. Much more so, when he (Nietzsche) later said, that “God was dead”.

I liked the way you linked the lack of balance between the two extremes of the dichotomy and Nietzsche’s quote “God is Dead”…

Although, I tend to think that Nietzsche idea of the Übermensch (which is the consequence of the God’s death, meaning the arrival of the Over Man) might be more linked the dionysian forces
Check out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

Thanks for that link. Yes, I think the Dionysian forces are definitely linked to the concept of the “over man”. About Jung, yes, I agree that the way he regards the “unconscious” is not as clear-cut as Freud’s. The “unconscious” continues to be a highly empirical scientific method up to this day, and one of the most important concepts in the psychological field that has not yet been challenged by anyone due to the magnitude of its unsurpassed evidence. The “unconscious” is definitely within us, because it was Freud who coined the term, and he fully explains it in his “Interpretation of Dreams”.

Thanks for commenting back… I am thinking now that overall the study of unconscious is elusive and almost incomprehensible… And I think taht this applies not only to freud but to Jung and Lacan…
If I had to choose, I would say Freud’s method can be more trustful in order to discover the dark and unconscious side…
I found that this link is eloquent in this sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_cognition
(Note check out excerpts on “Types of unconscious”)

Correction: “unconscious” was actually coined by the 18th-century German Romantic philosopher Friedrich Schelling (in his System of Transcendental Idealism, ch. 6) The concept was developed and popularized by the Austrian neurologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.”-http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind

“Dionysian spirit” is defined in the philosophy of Nietzsche, as displaying creative-intuitive power as opposed to critical-rational power.

But, both of them, the Apollonian and the Dionysian are necessary in the creation of art. Without the Apollonian, the Dionysian lacks the form and structure to make a coherent piece of art, and without the Dionysian, the Apollonian lacks the necessary vitality and passion. Although they are diametrically opposed, they are also intimately intertwined.

This is very well explained. Thanks, Aquileana.

And thanks for this link:
“The Birth of Tragedy (1872), by Friedrich Nietzsche”:

I read about it in a book on Nietzsche, and now I can read the original. Fantastic!

Hello dear Irina,
You have highlighted the most important excerpt of the post… I think that both forces are indeed “intimately intertwined” when It comes to art and its multiple expressions.
I am glad that you liked the post and that you got the link to Nietzsche’ s book, mainly because you said you had read about it… I recommend It too!.
Best wishes, Happy weekend and Hugs to you,
Aquileana 😛

How the two myth characters combine cognitive skills and the creative arts is well pointed out in this post. It’s also interesting to read Friedrich Nietzsche’s thoughts on the Apollonian –Dionysian dichotomy. A good insight into how human relationships function and the need to complement each other. Thank you, Aquileana. Have a good weekend!

Hello dear Iris,
Thanks for this thorough comment. You have got deep into the core of the subject… Thanks for providing an extensive approach with regard to the dichotomy and its practical application as a phychological pattern of behaviour.
Happy weekend to you as well. Best wishes,
Aquileana 😀

This was a thought-provoking article comparing the attributes of the Greek Gods, Apollo and Dionysian, which are necessary to create great art. It is interesting how the the Apollonian quality of form and structure needs to be merged with the Dionysian’ vitality and passion to create great art. Although these are diametrically opposed attributes, they are also intimately intertwined.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on mythology and how it connect to philosophy. Have a wonderful weekend.

Thanks for your great comment here… I couldn’t agree more with you…
Although being “diametrically opposed”, as you said, the Apollonian and the Dionysian are complementaries one with the other.
Art involves both extremes and results of their balance, I guess.

Thank you, Aquileana for this refreshing new breath of air! I love the awesome discussions in the article and in the comments – like others, this is the paragraph I loved best

“The Apollonian and the Dionysian are necessary in the creation of art. Without the Apollonian, the Dionysian lacks the form and structure to make a coherent piece of art, and without the Dionysian, the Apollonian lacks the necessary vitality and passion. Although they are diametrically opposed, they are also intimately intertwined.”

like yin and yang or the two sides of the same coin, id and ego, we can’t ever escape these two aspects of our humanity, can we?!

Thanks a lot for dropping by… Your comments are always pertinent and clever. I totally agree with you as regard to the complementary aspect of the Dichotomy Apollonian -Dionysian. Which leads us to the ying-Yang symbol as you have perfectly highlighted . It also made me think of Heraclitus and his theory of convergent Opposites, and finally to Aristotle’s theory of the golden mean and the consequent importance of finding out balance between these two extremes…

Its so interesting in seeing how tragedy also plays its role.. I have often observed its through a tragedy we are given opportunities to grow.
Life can not always be lived from one perspective. we have to have both the Joy and sadness within our lives to fully appreciate both..

The tragedy in todays modern living is that people do not appreciate the gifts given them .. Their desires are often based on the material wealth.. And they forget to embrace their true wealth of gifts in one another. caring and in unity, the wealth of family and friends… until tragedy strikes ..

Sending you my thoughts Aquileana and Hope your weekend was relaxing and enjoyable as mine was
Blessings Sue xox

Nice post Amalia, and agree with Nietzsche when he said our Western society has became too rationalistic, the enantiodromia backlash we suffer it’s reflected on the consumption of all kind of drugs to obtain some sort of relief from our daily rational Apollonian mind. I have been stressing the importance of the balance of these two currents on the Human soul for a while, and speak a little bit in the following post in my blog: THE POSTMODERN AGE AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW PARADIGM
Posted on July 13, 2011

I love the paragraph: “the Apollonian and the Dionysian are necessary in the creation of art. Without the Apollonian, the Dionysian lacks the form and structure to make a coherent piece of art, and without the Dionysian, the Apollonian lacks the necessary vitality and passion. Although they are diametrically opposed, they are also intimately intertwined.”
Over thinking and rationalising everything we do does stifle creativity and being impulsive, though balance of the two is a happy medium.
Great article cara Aquileana 😀

“Apollo, as the sun-god, represents light, clarity, and form, whereas Dionysus, as the wine-god, represents drunkenness and ecstasy”.

Although being “diametrically opposed”, as you said, the Apollonian and the Dionysian are complementaries one with the other.
Like two sides of the same coin, as someone said in the comments.
Once again, the further aim is related to finding balance, I guess.

(…) Singing and dancing, man expresses himself as a member of a higher community: he has forgotten how to walk and talk and is on the verge of flying up into the air as he dances. The enchantment speaks out in his gestures. Just as the animals now speak and the earth gives milk and honey, so something supernatural also echoes out of him: he feels himself a god;
he himself now moves in as lofty and ecstatic a way as he saw the gods move in his dream. The man is no longer an artist; he has become a work of art (…)

[…] the late 1800s A.D., the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche elaborated the dichotomy Apollonian- Dionysian in his book “The Birth of T…, arguing that the Apollonian principal corresponded to the principium individuationis, the […]

[…] self, and the sea. . [“By the North Sea”] is an elaborate metaphor for the act of Apollonian creation and the dominance of art over all transiency. (Robert Peters from The Victorian Experience: The […]